NVM ... didn't see it was already posted in another thread

LadyLassie said:

---

Yes. TU has LSU, Alabama, Michigan, Ohio State and Georgia (haha) lined up, but they still need us to "bolster" their schedule. Good bull.

---

None of those are schools in Texas you idiot

Boy this thread brought some hate, I'm proud of myself.

Ihatefallscounty said:

---

Boy this thread brought some hate, I'm proud of myself.

---

There is more rivalry between the pro-rivalry aggies and anti-rivalry aggies than between us and the Longhorns.

Dario said:

---

Ihatefallscounty said:

---

Boy this thread brought some hate, I'm proud of myself.

---

There is more rivalry between the pro-rivalry aggies and anti-rivalry aggies than between us and the Longhorns.

---

THIS!!!

evanpd16 said:

---

Ihatefallscounty said:

---

evanpd16 said:

---

Every single argument for not playing the game comes from the fear of losing the damn game. Play the damn game

---

says guy with no ag tag

---

in the fall I will finally have one

---

Then you are too young and stupid for your opinion to matter in this case.

4 said:

---

Bigsteve said:

---

4 said:

---

Bigsteve said:

---

If the students want the game back, then we should try to get the game back. It's their time, not ours.

---

Yes, those with more wisdom and experience should never try to guide or advise younger, less experienced folks.

If your kid wants to try LSD, you should give it to him. It's his time, right?

---

it's a football game....chill out. "Wisdom and Experience..?..." give me a break

---

---

I acknowledge most of us will play no part in this decision. Big donor Aggies will probably rule the day and possibly just the economics of it rules the day in the end.

With that said, I can't stand most reasons given for not playing them.
-They don't play fair. They will get their own refs.
-They left us and blocked others from playing us.
-They need us more than we need them.
-They will have to kiss our *** first.
-They tried to take us to the Pac12
-They can't be trusted.
-Their schedule sucks without us.
-They overplayed their hand with the longhorn network
-There was a ref who was a longhorn.
-The refs cheated us in a game once.
-They once pushed for unequal pay distribution
-They acted like they owned the big12
- we don't want tu to be our OOC P5 game every year.

Rivals who literally hate each other play each other and do all kinds of underhand things in recruiting and do everything in their power to get a leg up over the other all the time. The past underhanded instances just add fuel to the hatred and the rivalry. Don't think for a minute we are among friends in the SEC. We are a shark among sharks period. They cheat in recruiting Ole Miss, they will exploit any weakness or opportunity and yet we love playing with them in the SEC. We are trying to become the shot callers in the league and are laying down a foundation to make it happen.
If playing tu helps accomplish this faster-play em if not then don't. Period. We aren't in a league of pansies or saints quit acting like it. And just because we play them again it doesn't mean it's an every year commitment.

The move to the SEC has been a verifiable success given these data points, among others:

- consistent, excellent recruiting despite someone we all now know is a hack of a coach
- the best recruiting class (2018) we've ever signed, statistically
- record-setting fund-raising that has allowed us to build a half a billion dollar stadium
- ability to attract one of the current top coaches in the game due to fund-raising and facilities
- access to a highly successful conference network that is paying 50+ million dollars annually
- more national exposure through regularly playing on a bigger stage (the SEC)

Conversely, our move marginalized to the greatest extent possible, the burnt orange machine. I say "possible" because the burnt orange machine is a big brand, whether we outwardly recognize it as such or not. We left behind the big 12, which is a primarily regional stage, for the more national stage of the SEC. Folks on the two coasts and the northeast don't watch big 12 teams unless their team is playing them. Recruits on the coasts and in the northeast don't watch big 12 teams unless their teams are playing them. Not necessarily because they don't want to, but because a big 12 network doesn't exist for football. Folks all over the country can watch A&M because we're on the SEC network.

The way the SEC scheduling works, we play one P5 non conference opponent a year. Why do we want to give up any part of our control over that to them? We have the control to play whomever we decide to schedule, be it Oregon like we were going to before we chose Clemson, Notre Dame, etc.

technoviking said:

---

The move to the SEC has been a verifiable success given these data points, among others:

- consistent, excellent recruiting despite someone we all now know is a hack of a coach
- the best recruiting class (2018) we've ever signed, statistically
- record-setting fund-raising that has allowed us to build a half a billion dollar stadium
- ability to attract one of the current top coaches in the game due to fund-raising and facilities
- access to a highly successful conference network that is paying 50+ million dollars annually
- more national exposure through regularly playing on a bigger stage (the SEC)

Conversely, our move marginalized to the greatest extent possible, the burnt orange machine. I say "possible" because the burnt orange machine is a big brand, whether we outwardly recognize it as such or not. We left behind the big 12, which is a primarily regional stage, for the more national stage of the SEC. Folks on the two coasts and the northeast don't watch big 12 teams unless their team is playing them. Recruits on the coasts and in the northeast don't watch big 12 teams unless their teams are playing them. Not necessarily because they don't want to, but because a big 12 network doesn't exist for football. Folks all over the country can watch A&M because we're on the SEC network.

The way the SEC scheduling works, we play one P5 non conference opponent a year. Why do we want to give up any part of our control over that to them? We have the control to play whomever we decide to schedule, be it Oregon like we were going to before we chose Clemson, Notre Dame, etc.

---

Again, your points are logical, clear, well founded, and true.

People that want to play the game are operating from an emotional reaction. You cannot sway someone operating from an emotional premise by using logic and reason. It is impossible.

Good post, by the way. Well stated.

evanpd16 said:

---

Every single argument for not playing the game comes from the fear of losing the damn game. Play the damn game

---

This is a disingenuous statement at best. texas has manipulated the system to control the outcome to their advantage and there is plenty of evidence of it.

It has nothing to do with winning or losing the game any more than an abused spouse leaves a relationship out of concern for whether s/he will win or lose the next fight. It's about getting away from a toxic relationship in general.

technoviking said:

---

The move to the SEC has been a verifiable success given these data points, among others:

- consistent, excellent recruiting despite someone we all now know is a hack of a coach
- the best recruiting class (2018) we've ever signed, statistically
- record-setting fund-raising that has allowed us to build a half a billion dollar stadium
- ability to attract one of the current top coaches in the game due to fund-raising and facilities
- access to a highly successful conference network that is paying 50+ million dollars annually
- more national exposure through regularly playing on a bigger stage (the SEC)

Conversely, our move marginalized to the greatest extent possible, the burnt orange machine. I say "possible" because the burnt orange machine is a big brand, whether we outwardly recognize it as such or not. We left behind the big 12, which is a primarily regional stage, for the more national stage of the SEC. Folks on the two coasts and the northeast don't watch big 12 teams unless their team is playing them. Recruits on the coasts and in the northeast don't watch big 12 teams unless their teams are playing them. Not necessarily because they don't want to, but because a big 12 network doesn't exist for football. Folks all over the country can watch A&M because we're on the SEC network.

The way the SEC scheduling works, we play one P5 non conference opponent a year. Why do we want to give up any part of our control over that to them? We have the control to play whomever we decide to schedule, be it Oregon like we were going to before we chose Clemson, Notre Dame, etc.

---

This is not correct. South Carolina and Florida for example always play Clemson and Florida State as a non-conf rival game, and then in some years also play another P5 non-con opponent in addition to that rivalry game.

There are political arguments to be made against playing the sips, but not really any true logistical arguments. You just have to be willing to dump one of the cupcake games to play them, which if we wanted to, we could easily buy out the cupcake contract and do so. From a scheduling standpoint, the game CAN be played. You don't have to necessarily give up playing another P5 opponent to do so. It is a question of do we want to.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

technoviking said:

---

The move to the SEC has been a verifiable success given these data points, among others:

- consistent, excellent recruiting despite someone we all now know is a hack of a coach
- the best recruiting class (2018) we've ever signed, statistically
- record-setting fund-raising that has allowed us to build a half a billion dollar stadium
- ability to attract one of the current top coaches in the game due to fund-raising and facilities
- access to a highly successful conference network that is paying 50+ million dollars annually
- more national exposure through regularly playing on a bigger stage (the SEC)

Conversely, our move marginalized to the greatest extent possible, the burnt orange machine. I say "possible" because the burnt orange machine is a big brand, whether we outwardly recognize it as such or not. We left behind the big 12, which is a primarily regional stage, for the more national stage of the SEC. Folks on the two coasts and the northeast don't watch big 12 teams unless their team is playing them. Recruits on the coasts and in the northeast don't watch big 12 teams unless their teams are playing them. Not necessarily because they don't want to, but because a big 12 network doesn't exist for football. Folks all over the country can watch A&M because we're on the SEC network.

The way the SEC scheduling works, we play one P5 non conference opponent a year. Why do we want to give up any part of our control over that to them? We have the control to play whomever we decide to schedule, be it Oregon like we were going to before we chose Clemson, Notre Dame, etc.

---

This is not correct. South Carolina and Florida for example always play Clemson and Florida State as a non-conf rival game, and then in some years also play another P5 non-con opponent in addition to that rivalry game.

There are political arguments to be made against playing the sips, but not really any true logistical arguments. You just have to be willing to dump one of the cupcake games to play them, which if we wanted to, we could easily buy out the cupcake contract and do so. From a scheduling standpoint, the game CAN be played. You don't have to necessarily give up playing another P5 opponent to do so. It is a question of do we want to.

---

Why would we? It is a clear conference standard to play one P5 OOC opponent.

I CAN cut my dick off and throw it in the trash. But why would I?

No, it isn't a 'conference standard' to only play only one P5 OOC game if you happen to be a school like South Carolina or Florida Gators who has a major rival out of the conference.

Florida Gators for example, in 2017, here was their schedule. They played both Michigan AND Florida State in their non-con. Plus 2 cupcakes. Those were two big time opponents in non-con that Florida played in the same season. We could easily get into that same kind of boat as USCe and UF, if we wanted to.

https://floridagators.com/schedule.aspx?schedule=367

Look, if people want to make political arguments against playing the sips, okay fine. But scheduling-oriented arguments don't hold water. There are other SEC schools who have an annual non-con rivalry game and often play another P5 non-con game, and we could follow suit.

BTW, your analogy was interesting, but I recommend you really don't think such terrible thoughts!

Lateralus Ag said:

---

I CAN cut my dick off and throw it in the trash.

---

Battle Cattle thinks this looks like poll material.

I love how Texags thinks we marginalized t.u. They finished top ten and have a top ten recruiting class. Some of you live in a fantasy world

evanpd16 said:

---

Every single argument for not playing the game comes from the fear of losing the damn game. Play the damn game

---

I started going to game in 1956. Cost 50 cents until late fifties when it went up to a dollar. Other than a few games in the 80's and 90's all I heard was "poor Aggirs" I suppose you can't wait till you hear "poor aggies"

Dario said:

---

Ihatefallscounty said:

---

Boy this thread brought some hate, I'm proud of myself.

---

There is more rivalry between the pro-rivalry aggies and anti-rivalry aggies than between us and the Longhorns.

---

This is true...pro-rivalry Aggies are whipped losers who miss being subservient to the castrated aholes from Austin and can't wait to give those losers a better home game. If you're a pro-rivalry Aggie, you can't wait to apologize Obama style for ruining the rivalry and would be happy with the hoodie ref every time!

Pumpkinhead said:

---

technoviking said:

---

The move to the SEC has been a verifiable success given these data points, among others:

- consistent, excellent recruiting despite someone we all now know is a hack of a coach
- the best recruiting class (2018) we've ever signed, statistically
- record-setting fund-raising that has allowed us to build a half a billion dollar stadium
- ability to attract one of the current top coaches in the game due to fund-raising and facilities
- access to a highly successful conference network that is paying 50+ million dollars annually
- more national exposure through regularly playing on a bigger stage (the SEC)

Conversely, our move marginalized to the greatest extent possible, the burnt orange machine. I say "possible" because the burnt orange machine is a big brand, whether we outwardly recognize it as such or not. We left behind the big 12, which is a primarily regional stage, for the more national stage of the SEC. Folks on the two coasts and the northeast don't watch big 12 teams unless their team is playing them. Recruits on the coasts and in the northeast don't watch big 12 teams unless their teams are playing them. Not necessarily because they don't want to, but because a big 12 network doesn't exist for football. Folks all over the country can watch A&M because we're on the SEC network.

The way the SEC scheduling works, we play one P5 non conference opponent a year. Why do we want to give up any part of our control over that to them? We have the control to play whomever we decide to schedule, be it Oregon like we were going to before we chose Clemson, Notre Dame, etc.

---

This is not correct. South Carolina and Florida for example always play Clemson and Florida State as a non-conf rival game, and then in some years also play another P5 non-con opponent in addition to that rivalry game.

There are political arguments to be made against playing the sips, but not really any true logistical arguments. You just have to be willing to dump one of the cupcake games to play them, which if we wanted to, we could easily buy out the cupcake contract and do so. From a scheduling standpoint, the game CAN be played. You don't have to necessarily give up playing another P5 opponent to do so. It is a question of do we want to.

---

technically you are correct. and no, we don't need to do it. our schedule doesn't require us to play any less cupcake games per year.

i looked up the schedules of south carolina and florida the last 10 years. there are some years that they play 3 cupcakes like all the other SEC teams and sometimes they play 2. the difference is that they play those games against clemson and florida state every year. i'd be curious to know how "necessary" that game is to the common south carolina or florida fan. I imagine it would be a mixed bag, just like it is with us. i suppose one way to boil this whole issue down is to ask would you rather play tu every year or try a different flavor every now and then? deciding to do both in a year is in my opinion unnecessary given that recent history that winning the SEC or even being runner up in the SEC is enough to get you in the playoffs. conversely, teams in the big 12 require more than conference wins. we don't need it. they do.

evanpd16 said:

---

Caesar4 said:

---

evanpd16 said:

---

Every single argument for not playing the game comes from the fear of losing the damn game. Play the damn game

---

Please stop being wrong. Quit exaggerating/generalizing.

My main problem is that I don't want to have to play the horns at the expense of playing a different P5 opponent.

How would you have liked to have not played Clemson last season and played the horns instead?

How would like the major P5 non-conference game to ALWAYS be the horns?

---

I would've preferred to play tu at home over clemson in an absolute heart beat

---

So much for the argument our great university hasn't become a diploma mill if this is an example of a soon to be graduate!

I've been a proponent of playing the sips but we have to separate two different issues. One is whether our current non-con scheduling is adequate. The other is whether the sips make sense. On the first issue, I just don't give a crap what other programs do. The prices charged for season tickets are absurd, so watching 3 games against prairie view or utsa is garbage. The quality of games just doesn't warrant the cost. Quite honestly that's on the alumni because people keep paying to watch this garbage. The AD isn't going to do you any favors, they're here to gouge you every step of the way.

On the sip subject, I have a softer stance as I think playing them makes sense but wouldn't be that concerned about it if we took care of problem one above.

These idiots who really want to see the Ags play tu each year should simply get out the old videos of yesteryears' games and get all the "enjoyment" that us older (and apparently brighter) Ags got out of seeing the tsip refs, media and fans hand the Ags loss after loss effectively cutting off our chances to build the up and coming program that we have become in the SEC. I still remember all of the "Poor Aggie" serenades that rained down on us year after year at nearly every sporting event that involved the sips and don't even have the slightest desire for us to ever play them again except in a major bowl game where we will kick their butts once and for all. I hate to say idiots, but I'm afraid that's close to accurate when they can't or won't pay attention to the comments and opinions of thousands of dedicated older Aggie fans who were actually around for a long period of this "rivalry" about the prospect of renewing this series.

People calling others' intelligence into question on the merits of playing a football game really need to check their priorities. Some of you act like you got stock invested in the football program...

DANManman said:

---

People calling others' intelligence into question on the merits of playing a football game really need to check their priorities. Some of you act like you got stock invested in the football program...

---

Guilty. A lot of people here are taking it to the next level though.

Bottom line, we offered to keep playing when we joined the SEC, they said no.

evanpd16 said:

---

Every single argument for not playing the game comes from the fear of losing the damn game. Play the damn game

---

Absolutely wrong. Many of us wouldn't play those ****heads again if we were guaranteed to win every game.

They are just *****y business partners that a lot of us want nothing to do with. The "scared" argument is tired and stupid.

evanpd16 said:

---

Every single argument for not playing the game comes from the fear of losing the damn game. Play the damn game

---

Good one.

Lateralus Ag said:

---

technoviking said:

---

The move to the SEC has been a verifiable success given these data points, among others:

- consistent, excellent recruiting despite someone we all now know is a hack of a coach
- the best recruiting class (2018) we've ever signed, statistically
- record-setting fund-raising that has allowed us to build a half a billion dollar stadium
- ability to attract one of the current top coaches in the game due to fund-raising and facilities
- access to a highly successful conference network that is paying 50+ million dollars annually
- more national exposure through regularly playing on a bigger stage (the SEC)

Conversely, our move marginalized to the greatest extent possible, the burnt orange machine. I say "possible" because the burnt orange machine is a big brand, whether we outwardly recognize it as such or not. We left behind the big 12, which is a primarily regional stage, for the more national stage of the SEC. Folks on the two coasts and the northeast don't watch big 12 teams unless their team is playing them. Recruits on the coasts and in the northeast don't watch big 12 teams unless their teams are playing them. Not necessarily because they don't want to, but because a big 12 network doesn't exist for football. Folks all over the country can watch A&M because we're on the SEC network.

The way the SEC scheduling works, we play one P5 non conference opponent a year. Why do we want to give up any part of our control over that to them? We have the control to play whomever we decide to schedule, be it Oregon like we were going to before we chose Clemson, Notre Dame, etc.

---

Again, your points are logical, clear, well founded, and true.

People that want to play the game are operating from an emotional reaction. You cannot sway someone operating from an emotional premise by using logic and reason. It is impossible.

Good post, by the way. Well stated.

---

Like arguing with democrats...

Philip J Fry said:

---

evanpd16 said:

---

Ihatefallscounty said:

---

evanpd16 said:

---

Every single argument for not playing the game comes from the fear of losing the damn game. Play the damn game

---

says guy with no ag tag

---

in the fall I will finally have one

---

Then you are too young and stupid for your opinion to matter in this case.

---

I grew up on that rivalry. I'm cautiously optimistic about renewing it. Tu is under a war of attrition from liberal progressive ideology (more so than us). They WILL rot from the inside out, and their athletics will fall by the wayside

Snicklepox said:

---

Philip J Fry said:

---

evanpd16 said:

---

Ihatefallscounty said:

---

evanpd16 said:

---

Every single argument for not playing the game comes from the fear of losing the damn game. Play the damn game

---

says guy with no ag tag

---

in the fall I will finally have one

---

Then you are too young and stupid for your opinion to matter in this case.

---

I grew up on that rivalry. I'm cautiously optimistic about renewing it. Tu is under a war of attrition from liberal progressive ideology (more so than us). They WILL rot from the inside out, and their athletics will fall by the wayside

---

"folks that don't want to bring the rivalry back wear tin foil hats!"

Snicklepox: "hold my beer!"

Player To Be Named Later said:

---

evanpd16 said:

---

Every single argument for not playing the game comes from the fear of losing the damn game. Play the damn game

---

Absolutely wrong. Many of us wouldn't play those ****heads again if we were guaranteed to win every game.

They are just *****y business partners that a lot of us want nothing to do with. The "scared" argument is tired and stupid.

---

I find the "you're scared" argument quite interesting. I have said this for a long time, but it seems that a lot of Aggies are completely uncomfortable unless they are the lapdog of sip. Having their ears scratched by sip makes them feel complete. It is a culture and it is difficult, if not impossible, to overcome.

It is sad really. I have come to pity the lapdogs.

Ihatefallscounty said:

---

evanpd16 said:

---

Every single argument for not playing the game comes from the fear of losing the damn game. Play the damn game

---

says guy with no ag tag

---

Whenever somebody brings up the lack of an AgTag as some sort of boom it means they are getting their ass kicked in an argument and really really really want to change the subject to hopefully divert attention from that fact.

Kentatm said:

---

Ihatefallscounty said:

---

evanpd16 said:

---

Every single argument for not playing the game comes from the fear of losing the damn game. Play the damn game

---

says guy with no ag tag

---

Whenever somebody brings up the lack of an AgTag as some sort of boom it means they are getting their ass kicked in an argument and really really really want to change the subject to hopefully divert attention from that fact.

---

Says the guy with no Ag Tag.

Lateralus Ag said:

---

Kentatm said:

---

Ihatefallscounty said:

---

evanpd16 said:

---

Every single argument for not playing the game comes from the fear of losing the damn game. Play the damn game

---

says guy with no ag tag

---

Whenever somebody brings up the lack of an AgTag as some sort of boom it means they are getting their ass kicked in an argument and really really really want to change the subject to hopefully divert attention from that fact.

---

Says the guy with no Ag Tag.

---

I'm not much for jewelry.